Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eugene Goodman who wrote (18690)	4/21/1998 6:23:00 PM
From: Justin Banks	Respond to of 24154

</lurk> The theory is important to the DOJ because they are breaking new ground. Microsoft does not have a controlling market share. s/does not have/has/; They do not hurt the consumer by charging high prices. s/do not hurt the consumer/stifle competition/g; s/charging high prices/bundling and unreasonable pricing/g; The DOJ law suit is based on what might happen if the government does not help. Microsoft will get a 70 % [isn't this what Netscape has now?] or higher market share, then they raise their prices and screw the helpless consumer. Since none of this is has happened, an economic theory is essential to predict the future. [Good luck. it will be a first] If the theory is flawed so is their law suit. IMO, MSFT is not so much guilty of screwing customers as they are of stifling competition. They provide products that some people apparently like. The real issue is not what products they bring to market, but what products they prevent from being brought to market, and what technology has never happened because it was a threat to MSFT. I've been too close to NT for anybody to tell me that it's robust technology. It's not. It's just better that the other stuff MSFT sells. Better stuff has existed in the past, some still exists today, and somebody will surely write more in the future. Whether or not true innovation and development can continue independent of MSFT should be a primary concern of the DOJ iff it can be shown that MSFT has a deleterious effect on such development. Of course, if they ask me, I'll say yes, but nobody seems to care much what the techies think. I'm still waiting for a judge to tell MSFT Okay, email the source to xxx@xxx.org and I'll accept their judgement as to whether or not it's integrated ;) -justinb <lurk>

To: Eugene Goodman who wrote (18690)	4/21/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reback, et al. chillingly portray the ominous end of that path: "It is difficult to imagine that in an open society such as this one, with multiple information sources, a single company could seize sufficient control of information transmission so as to constitute a threat to the underpinnings of a free society. But such a scenario is a realistic (and perhaps probable) outcome." Which is also what I hear from all the friends of Bill here, when the context is something other than antitrust enforcement. Another thing where I'm hobbled by that famous hobgoblin of small minds. On Brian Arthur and network externalities / path dependence / whatever, funny thing is, from the secondary reporting I'd heard on it, it sounded to me like a pro-Microsoft argument. I swear, I read about 5 articles claiming it showed Microsoft was a natural monopoly, and should be left alone, before I read an article that talked about what Brian Arthur actually had to say. I guess that was naive software engineer Bill not educating the people properly again. I wouldn't judge economic arguments any more than I'd judge legal arguments. Most of Bill's posturing seems to be on extralegal grounds, though. The big theoretical argument here for Bill always seems to center on Objectivism, which is about as grass roots as Bill's PR campaign. Despite what comes out of Cato, there's even dissention in the libertarian camp. The DOJ law suit is based on what might happen if the government does not help. Microsoft will get a 70 % [isn't this what Netscape has now?] or higher market share, then they raise their prices and screw the helpless consumer. Right. I haven't heard anyone claim 70% for Netscape of late; if they still got it, good for them. This "consumer" theory of antitrust is a Reagan era thing, as I understand it, though it's been presented in the past as somehow enshrined in case law. Hard for that to happen without any cases, you'll have to ask Reggie about that one. Microsoft already has something well in excess of 70% in OS. That puts it within the scope of antitrust, in terms of predatory pricing and leveraging the monopoly. I know, it's just not fair. Others have to live with it, or have managed to live with it in the past, I'm still at a loss as to why Microsoft is supposed to be immune. That's the exclusive right of Major League Baseball, as I understand it. Cheers, Dan, repetitious as usual.